Open and accept zero reserve channels by tankyleo · Pull Request #4428 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

tankyleo · 2026-02-19T17:43:43Z

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-19T17:43:46Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @carlaKC as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

codecov · 2026-02-26T11:44:38Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 78.74818% with 146 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.91%. Comparing base (14e522f) to head (5fa3a7c).
⚠️ Report is 25 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	70.64%	121 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	81.70%	15 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/functional_test_utils.rs	94.33%	6 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs	97.46%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4428      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.94%   85.91%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         159      159              
  Lines      104644   105103     +459     
  Branches   104644   105103     +459     
==========================================
+ Hits        89934    90298     +364     
- Misses      12204    12300      +96     
+ Partials     2506     2505       -1

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.91% <78.74%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

TheBlueMatt

chanmon_consistency needs to be updated to have a 0-reserve channel or two (I believe we now have three channels between each pair of peers, so we can just do it on a subset of them, in fact we could have three separate channel types for better coverage).

TheBlueMatt · 2026-02-27T01:58:37Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

+	/// Creates a new outbound channel to the given remote node and with the given value.
+	///
+	/// The only difference between this method and [`ChannelManager::create_channel`] is that this method sets
+	/// the reserve the counterparty must keep at all times in the channel to zero. This allows the counterparty to


nit: If that's the only difference let's say create_channel_to_trusted_peer_0_reserve? Nice to be explicit, imo.

TheBlueMatt · 2026-02-27T02:10:13Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs


 		let channel_value_satoshis =
 			our_funding_contribution_sats.saturating_add(msg.common_fields.funding_satoshis);
+		// TODO(zero_reserve): support reading and writing the `disable_channel_reserve` field


Two questions. Shouldn't we check that if a channel has the 0-reserve feature bit and if it is fail if the user isn't accepting 0-reserve? Also why shouldn't we just set it now? I'm not sure we need to bother with a staging bit, really, honestly...

TheBlueMatt · 2026-03-04T18:36:41Z

Needs rebase now :/

tankyleo · 2026-03-05T10:57:51Z

Needs rebase now :/

Let me know if you prefer I rebase first

TheBlueMatt · 2026-03-05T14:25:02Z

Feel free to go ahead and rebase and squash, yea.

tankyleo · 2026-03-05T17:24:05Z

Squash diff (do not click compare just above, I pushed the wrong branch, and later corrected it):

https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/compare/253db4d9a05cda43f74c2835448126d3205b27b8..43be438f70ba28ad7918e407026a78763ac2b368

The goal is to prevent any commitments with no outputs, since these are not broadcastable.

This new flag sets 0-reserve for the channel opener.

This new method sets 0-reserve for the channel accepter.

`ChannelContext::do_accept_channel_checks`, `ChannelContext::new_for_outbound_channel`, `ChannelContext::new_for_inbound_channel`, `InboundV1Channel::new`, `OutboundV1Channel::new`.

Co-Authored-By: HAL 9000

tankyleo · 2026-03-05T17:44:48Z

git range-diff main 43be438 7fde002

1:  bfba6e993 ! 1:  b916c3596 Add inbound and outbound checks for zero reserve channels
    @@ lightning/src/ln/channel.rs: impl FundingScope {

                // New reserve values are based on the new channel value and are v2-specific
     -          let counterparty_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis =
    --                  Some(get_v2_channel_reserve_satoshis(post_channel_value, MIN_CHAN_DUST_LIMIT_SATOSHIS));
    +-                  get_v2_channel_reserve_satoshis(post_channel_value, MIN_CHAN_DUST_LIMIT_SATOSHIS);
     -          let holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis = get_v2_channel_reserve_satoshis(
     -                  post_channel_value,
     -                  context.counterparty_dust_limit_satoshis,
    @@ lightning/src/ln/channel.rs: impl FundingScope {
     +                  == 0
     +          {
     +                  // If we previously had a 0-value reserve, continue with the same reserve
    -+                  Some(0)
    ++                  0
     +          } else {
    -+                  Some(get_v2_channel_reserve_satoshis(post_channel_value, MIN_CHAN_DUST_LIMIT_SATOSHIS))
    ++                  get_v2_channel_reserve_satoshis(post_channel_value, MIN_CHAN_DUST_LIMIT_SATOSHIS)
     +          };
     +          let holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis =
     +                  if prev_funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis == 0 {
    @@ lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs: fn get_next_commitment_stats(
        );

     @@ lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs: fn get_available_balances(
    -   let fee_spike_buffer_htlc =
                if channel_type.supports_anchor_zero_fee_commitments() { 0 } else { 1 };

    +   // Note that the feerate is 0 in zero-fee commitment channels, so this statement is a noop
     -  let local_feerate = feerate_per_kw
     +  let spiked_feerate = feerate_per_kw
                * if is_outbound_from_holder && !channel_type.supports_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx() {
2:  1f8ca6c66 = 2:  53fc9a354 Add 0-reserve to `accept_inbound_channel_from_trusted_peer`
3:  1b94f7cc3 = 3:  da0520818 Add `ChannelManager::create_channel_to_trusted_peer_0reserve`
4:  19b8d7943 = 4:  1905f94e7 Shakedown zero reserve channels
5:  de2366da4 = 5:  4e6a7527a Format `ChannelManager::create_channel_internal` and...
6:  43be438f7 = 6:  7fde002e7 Update `chanmon_consistency` to include 0FC and 0-reserve channels

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-05T18:44:59Z

✅ Added second reviewer: @joostjager

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-07T10:57:40Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @joostjager! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-09T00:00:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @joostjager! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-09T10:58:39Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @joostjager! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-11T10:59:40Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @carlaKC! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

carlaKC

First pass - haven't gone through the tests yet.

carlaKC · 2026-03-11T13:51:40Z

lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs

+	let dust_limit_msat = dust_limit_satoshis.saturating_mul(1000);
+	if holder_balance_msat.saturating_sub(max_dust_htlc_msat) < dust_limit_msat
+		&& counterparty_balance_msat < dust_limit_msat
+		&& nondust_htlc_count == 0


Can we re-use check_no_outputs here? Could also return early if we don't need any action.

We'd need to change it to a saturating_sub, but I think that's okay because we have a checked_sub check of our balances on 321 after calling check_no_outputs anyway?

carlaKC · 2026-03-11T13:58:48Z

lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs

+		// If we are allowed to send non-dust HTLCs, set the min HTLC to the smallest non-dust HTLC...
+		if available_capacity_msat >= min_nondust_htlc_sat.saturating_mul(1000) {


nit: to the largest non-dust htlc?

hmm min_nondust_htlc_sat is right on the dust limit, so that's the smallest non-dust HTLC we can send ? The largest non-dust HTLC would be the available_capacity_msat, which we leave untouched.

carlaKC · 2026-03-11T14:21:01Z

lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs

+			// 1) The dust_limit_satoshis plus the fee of the exisiting commitment at the spiked feerate.
+			// 2) The fee of the commitment with an additional non-dust HTLC, aka the fee spike buffer HTLC.
+			//    In this case we don't mind the holder balance output dropping below the dust limit, as
+			//    this additional non-dust HTLC will create the single remaining output on the commitment.
+			let min_balance_msat =
+				cmp::max(dust_limit_satoshis + tx_fee_sat, fee_spike_buffer_sat) * 1000;


Comment for (1) says "at the spiked feerate" but isn't tx_fee_sat is just our current feerate?

A more descriptive name would be helpful here (if you can thing of something less gross than max_output_preserving_fee?).

Comment for (1) says "at the spiked feerate" but isn't tx_fee_sat is just our current feerate?

See the callsites of the function; we always use the spiked_feerate as the feerate_per_kw parameter. I admit this is confusing, should I rename the function parameter to spiked_feerate ?

A more descriptive name would be helpful here (if you can thing of something less gross than max_output_preserving_fee?).

How is current_spiked_tx_fee_sat ? It would be consistent with the spiked_feerate style. With max_output_preserving_fee you want to highlight that we want to maintain an output on the commitment transaction even with a 2x increase in the feerate ?

carlaKC · 2026-03-11T14:30:09Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+			.map_err(|()| {
+				ChannelError::close(String::from("Balance exhausted on local commitment"))
+			})?;


Seems like we should add an advisory on the option_zero_reserve spec about this? Otherwise a spec-compliant peer could send us a htlc that fails check_no_outputs and gets FC'ed.

The intention of making this check in all cases, and not just if funding.is_outbound(), is to check this requirement from the spec:

- receiving an `amount_msat` that results in a commitment transaction without any output: - SHOULD send a `warning` and close the connection, or send an `error` and fail the channel.

It seems to me if a peer fails check_no_outputs for our local commitment, they are not compliant with the current spec right ?

carlaKC · 2026-03-11T14:49:53Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

 	/// If it does not confirm before we decide to close the channel, or if the funding transaction
 	/// does not pay to the correct script the correct amount, *you will lose funds*.
 	///
+	/// # Zero-reserve


Shouldn't we be setting the option_zero_reserve feature in lightning/bolts#1140?

tankyleo added this to Weekly Goals Feb 19, 2026

tankyleo moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Feb 19, 2026

tankyleo self-assigned this Feb 19, 2026

tankyleo force-pushed the 2026-02-zero-reserve branch from ffa1657 to 5fa3a7c Compare February 26, 2026 09:56

tankyleo marked this pull request as ready for review February 26, 2026 10:45

tankyleo requested a review from TheBlueMatt February 26, 2026 10:46

tankyleo added this to the 0.3 milestone Feb 26, 2026

TheBlueMatt reviewed Feb 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

tankyleo force-pushed the 2026-02-zero-reserve branch from 471ba8f to 253db4d Compare March 5, 2026 10:55

tankyleo requested a review from TheBlueMatt March 5, 2026 10:57

tankyleo force-pushed the 2026-02-zero-reserve branch 2 times, most recently from 5fa3a7c to 43be438 Compare March 5, 2026 17:21

tankyleo added 6 commits March 5, 2026 17:32

Add inbound and outbound checks for zero reserve channels

b916c35

The goal is to prevent any commitments with no outputs, since these are not broadcastable.

Add 0-reserve to accept_inbound_channel_from_trusted_peer

53fc9a3

This new flag sets 0-reserve for the channel opener.

Add ChannelManager::create_channel_to_trusted_peer_0reserve

da05208

This new method sets 0-reserve for the channel accepter.

Shakedown zero reserve channels

1905f94

Format ChannelManager::create_channel_internal and...

4e6a752

`ChannelContext::do_accept_channel_checks`, `ChannelContext::new_for_outbound_channel`, `ChannelContext::new_for_inbound_channel`, `InboundV1Channel::new`, `OutboundV1Channel::new`.

Update chanmon_consistency to include 0FC and 0-reserve channels

7fde002

Co-Authored-By: HAL 9000

tankyleo force-pushed the 2026-02-zero-reserve branch from 43be438 to 7fde002 Compare March 5, 2026 17:36

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from joostjager March 5, 2026 18:44

tankyleo requested review from carlaKC and removed request for joostjager March 10, 2026 14:33

carlaKC reviewed Mar 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

		// If we are allowed to send non-dust HTLCs, set the min HTLC to the smallest non-dust HTLC...
		if available_capacity_msat >= min_nondust_htlc_sat.saturating_mul(1000) {

Conversation

tankyleo commented Feb 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Feb 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

tankyleo commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

tankyleo commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

tankyleo commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 7, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

carlaKC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

tankyleo commented Feb 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading